Background: 3D printing is a rapidly developing technology in the healthcare industry and in dentistry. Its application clearly shows that this area of digital dentistry has potential for everyday usage across all fields, including prosthodontics, orthodontics, maxillofacial surgery, and oral implantology. However, despite gaining ground, there is a lack of information about how specialists (dentists and dental technicians) use additive technology. Our research group aimed to investigate the impact of social media on additive manufacturing technology among dental specialists and their everyday usage of 3D printing. Methods: This paper investigated specialists’ everyday usage of 3D printers via an online survey (Google Forms). The survey questions aimed to discover the number of 3D printers used, the accessibility of the devices, the annual cost, and the design programs. Since specialists tend to build online communities on social media, we circulated our study questionnaire using our profiles on LinkedIn, Facebook, and Instagram platforms during our research. Results: A total of 120 responses were received from 20 countries, with the most significant numbers being from Hungary 23.7% (n = 27), the United States 18.4% (n = 21), and the United Kingdom 7.9% (n = 9). Most of the participants were dentists (n = 68) or dental technicians (n = 29), but some CAD/CAM specialists (n = 23) also completed our survey. The participants had an average of 3.8 years (±0.7) of experience in the 3D printing field, and owned a total of 405 printing devices (3.6 on average/person). Conclusions: The impact of social media on this research field is growing increasingly. Hence, we support specialists in joining virtual communities on professional platforms. This article intended to provide a practical overview, feedback, and direction for dentists interested in 3D printing technology. From our survey, we can conclude that additive technology is broadening dental applications and the services that we can provide for our patients.

Intraoral scanners (IOS) are continuing to gain popularity in clinical dentistry, replacing the traditional impression-taking and related technology. Despite their increasing importance, there are few data on the utility and usage of IOS amongst dentists. This study investigates the user experience of IOS technology as well as the perceived quality of a variety of IOS used by dental clinicians worldwide. An online survey of 1072 dentists was conducted to elicit data on the number of individual IOS used, their accessibility, the maintenance fees, and the programmes used. The first part of the questionnaire included demographic data and related questions, whilst the second part focussed on the specific IOS used by the respondents and the satisfaction with their scanners. We surveyed 1072 respondents from 109 different countries. More than three-quarters of the survey cohort (78.8%) use IOS in their daily work, whilst 21.17% do not. The average number of scanners owned by the respondents was 1.5 (±0.9), and in total, the cohort used 36 different types of IOS. More than one-third (38.6%) of the respondents used computer-aided design (CAD) software as well. As for the frequency of IOS usage, 51.5% used the system on a daily basis, 28.2% did so 2 to 3 times a week, and 10.0% did so once a week. Overall, the top 3 IOS used by the cohort were Medit i700 followed by wireless Medit i700 and Dentsply Sirona Primescan. This study describes, for the first time, the IOS user experience in an international cohort. More than 75% of the respondents used IOS on a daily basis in their practice, whilst Medit and Dentsply Sirona brands were the most popular scanners amongst the group. It appears that digital impression-taking technology is universal, and digital workflow in dentistry will continue to grow.

Introduction: This article describes the authors’ digital workflow-based method for fabricating intraoral occlusal splints, from planning to the evaluation phase. Materials and Methods: In our protocol, first, we had a registration phase. This included taking digital impressions, determining the centric relation (CR) position with the deprogrammer Luci Jig, and using the digital facebow for measuring the individual values. The laboratory phase was next, which included planning and manufacturing with a 3D printer. The last phase was delivery, when we checked the stability of the splint and adjusted the occlusal part. Result: The average cost is lower for a fully digital splint than for conventional methods. In terms of time, there was also a significant difference between the classic and digital routes. From a dental technical point of view, the execution was much more predictable. The printed material was very rigid and, therefore, fragile. Compared to the analog method, the retention was much weaker. Conclusion: The presented method permits time-efficient laboratory production, and may also be performed chairside in a dental office. The technology is perfectly applicable to everyday life. In addition to its many beneficial properties, its negative properties must also be highlighted.

Background: Medication-related osteonecrosis of the jaw (MRONJ) is a type of jawbone necrosis caused by the use of drugs for some types of cancer and osteoporosis. The current study aimed to evaluate the associations between hyperglycemia and the development of medication-related osteonecrosis of the jaw. Methods: Our research group investigated data collected between 1 January 2019 and 31 December 2020. A total of 260 patients were selected from the Inpatient Care Unit, Department of Oromaxillofacial Surgery and Stomatology, Semmelweis University. Fasting glucose data were used and included in the study. Results: Approximately 40% of the necrosis group and 21% of the control group presented with hyperglycemia. There was a significant association between hyperglycemia and MRONJ (p < 0.05, p = 0.003). Vascular anomaly and immune dysfunction caused by hyperglycemia can lead to necrosis after tooth extraction. Necrosis is more common in the mandible (75.0%) and in the case of parenteral antiresorptive treatment (intravenous Zoledronate and subcutaneous Denosumab). Hyperglycemia is a more relevant risk factor than bad oral habits (26.7%). Conclusions: Ischemia is a complication of abnormal glucose levels, a possible risk factor for necrosis development. Hence, uncontrolled or poorly regulated plasma glucose levels can significantly increase the risk of jawbone necrosis after invasive dental or oral surgical interventions.

This study aimed to collect information about oral health knowledge and the habits of people living with diabetes (PwD), primarily type 1 diabetes, using the newly developed World Health Organisation Oral Health Questionnaire for Adults (Annex 7). Comparable and reliable questionnaires, comprising 23 questions for PwD, were sent to diabetes social media groups, mailing lists, and associations. The survey explored the relationships amongst demographic factors, age, dental education, eating habits, and other factors. The 23-question survey was answered by 307 individuals from 60 different countries. Alcohol and tobacco use, dental anxiety, and bad habits were often reported. Of the participants, 61.2% (n = 188) had at least 1 drink during the past 30 days. Of the participants, 22.8% (n = 70) were smokers. In total, 80.8% (n = 248) of the participants consumed biscuits, 76.2% (n = 234) consumed sweets, and 63.2% (n = 194) consumed soft drinks regularly. A total of 26.4% (n = 81) of the participants reported being afraid of dental treatment. Of the participants, 48.5% (n = 149) reported dry mouth and other oral complications. The frequency of visits to the dentist was satisfactory. A total of 71.3% (n = 219) of the participants reported visiting a dentist during the past 12 months. There is a need for proper oral health education for PwD. Trained diabetes advocates could be core messengers. However, interdisciplinary cooperation is mandatory for both education and the clinical aspect of diabetes care. For example, diabetes nurses need to be educated with the help of dentists or oral hygienists.

Introduction: Dental implantology has seen rapid technological advancements, with artificial intelligence (AI) increasingly integrated into diagnostic, planning, and surgical processes. The release of chat‐generative pretrained transformer (ChatGPT) and its subsequent updates, including the deep research function, presents opportunities for AI‐assisted systematic reviews. However, its efficacy compared to traditional manual research has not been researched. Materials and Methods: A systematic review was conducted on May 6, 2025, to evaluate recent innovations in dental implantology and AI. Two parallel searches were performed: one using ChatGPT 4.1’s deep research tool in the PubMed database and another manual PubMed search by two independent reviewers. Both searches used identical keywords and Boolean operators targeting studies from 2020 to 2025. Inclusion criteria were peer‐reviewed studies related to implant design, osseointegration, guided placement, and other predefined outcomes. Results: The manual search identified 124 articles, of which 23 met the inclusion criteria. ChatGPT retrieved 114 articles, selected 13 for inclusion, yet only included 11 in its synthesis. Two cited articles by the AI software were nonexistent, and numerous relevant studies were not retrieved, whereas the remaining articles were correct and found by manual search as well. ChatGPT had high specificity (98%) and low sensitivity (47.8%), with a statistically significant difference compared to manual search and selection. Discussion: AI tools like ChatGPT show promise in literature search, synthesis, and assistance, especially in improving readability and identifying trending topics in science. Nevertheless, the current state of deep research function lacks the reliability required for conducting systematic reviews due to issues such as made‐up references and missed articles. The results highlight the need for human supervision and improved safeguards. Conclusions: ChatGPT’s deep research function can support, but not replace manual systematic search and selection. It offers substantial benefits in writing support and preliminary synthesis due to acceptable accuracy, but limitations in reliability and low sensitivity (47.8%) require cautious use and transparent reporting of any AI involvement in scientific research.